WITH CIVIL
APPEAL NOS. 347, 1292-94/86,2578/81, WRIT PETITION NOS. 7535-36/85, 378 AND 391/86
AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11732-33 OF 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9931-32 of
1991) AND CAMP NO. 18628-86 IN C.A. NO.
1292/86 O R D E R IN C.A. Nos. 2576-77/81, 347/86, W.P. No. 7535-36/85 AND CMP
NO. 18628/86 IN C.A. NO. 1292/86 These matters are disposed
of together. We need not elaborately mention the fact leading to filling of
these appeals and writ Petitions. Suffice it to state that the validity of U.P.
Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 was upheld by this Court in The Ishwari
Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. etc. vs. The State of Utter Pradesh
& Ors. etc. [(1980) 3 SCR 331]. However, proceedings before the BIFR are
pending to streamline the working of sick industry, namely, U.P. State Sugar
Corporation. Shri H.N. Salve, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants and Writ Petitioner in these cases, submitted that he had discussion
with his clients after the case was last adjourned. He suggested that the
appellants are proposing to make a representation to the BIFR for consideration
of their cases and so it was not necessary to argue the case on merits. In that
view, we need not decide the case on merits. It would be open to the appellants
to make representation to the BIFR and it would be open to the BIFR to
entertain the representation and dispose it of.

The
appeals and Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the
above observation. We make it clear that no issue of law or fact is left open
in these cases.

Pending
appeal, the appellant made an application in CMP No. 18628/86 for directions as
regards the possession of the bungalow occupied by the Director of the
appellant Company. When there was conflicting claim as regards the possession,
this court had called for a report from the District Judge, Bulandshehar. In
furtherance thereof, the District Judge submitted the report. Or consideration
of the report by proceedings dated January 09,1990 this Court passed the order as
under :

"In,
this case, a report has been received from the learned District Judge as to the
persons who are in possession of the property as on May 9, l936. These are
clearly prima facie Findings in order to enable this Court to pass an interim
order. We direct that the status quo regarding the possession, as reported by
the District Judge will continue till the disposal of the case.

We may
make it clear that we do not pronounce regarding the title to the property in
question and also regarding any question of mense profits which the appellants
may be entitled to. The appellants, if they so desire, may takethe appropriate
proceeding in the matter." In view of the fact that we are now dismissing
the appeals as withdrawn we make it clear that the order and the status quo
order stand discharged. Whoever seeks any positive direction. as regards the
possession of the bungalow, it would be open to the appropriate party to take
such procedure as is available at law. We give eight weeks' time from today to
take such steps; untill then the status quo order granted by this Court would
be continue for eight weeks only and no further. As regards the vesting and
other incidental issues, it would be open to the appropriate parties to lay
proceedings under Section 10 of U.P. Sugar Industry Undertakings Act before the
prescribed Authority which would decide the matter in accordance with law. It
would be open to the prescribed authority to consider the question
independently on its own merit in accordance with law and it would be open to
the parties to place such material as is available to them at law.

IN
C.A. No. 2578/1981 Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

IN C.A. NO 1292-93/86 AND W.P. NO. 378/86 These matters are
disposed of together. We need not elaborately mention the facts leading to file
these appeals and Writ Petitions. Suffice it to state that the validity of U.P.
Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 was upheld by this Court in The Ishwari
Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. etc. vs. The State of Utter Pradesh
& Ors. etc. [(1980) 3 SCR 331)]. However, proceedings before the BIFR is
pending to streamline the working of sick industry. namely, U.P State Sugar
Corporation. Shri H.N. Salve, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants and Write Petitioner in these cases submitted that he had discussion
with his cilent after the case was last adjourned. He suggested that the
appellants are proposing to make a representation to the BIFR for consideration
of their cases and so not necessary to argue the case on merits. In that view
we need uot decide the case on merit. It would be open to the appellants to
make representation to the BIFR and it would be open to the BIFR to entertain
the representation and dispose it of. The appeals and Writ Petitions are
accordingly dismissed as withthdrawn with the above observation. We make it
clear that no issue of law or fact is left open in these cases.

IN C.A. 1294/86 AND W.P. NO. 391/86 These matters are
disposed of together. We need not elaborately mention the facts leading to file
these appeals and Writ Petitions. Suffice it to state that the validity of U.P.
Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1991 was upheld by this Court in The Iswari
Khetan Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Anr. etc. vs. The State of Utter Pradesh &
Ors. etc. [(1980) 3 SCR 331]. However, proceedings before the BIFR is pending
to streamline the working of sick indutry sick industry, namely, U.P. State
Sugar Corporation. Shri H.N. Salve, the learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants and Writ Petitioner in these cases, submitted that he had
discussion with his clients after the case was last adjourned. He suggested
that the appellants are proposing to make a representation to the BIFR for
consideration of their cases and so not necessary to argue the case on merits.
In that view we need not decide the case on merit. It would be open to the appellants
to make representation to the BIFR and it would be open to the BIFR lo
entertain the representation and dispose it of.

The
appeals and Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the
above observation. He make it clear that no issue of law or fact is left open
in these cases.

SLP(C)
Nos. 9931-32/1991 Leave granted.

We
have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

The
appeals arise from order if High Court made in Writ Petition No.9690/1990 dated
January 24,1991. The appellants have sought for
directions against the bank for the realisation of the dues belonging to the
undertakings. The High Court in the impugned order passed as under :

"For
the above reasons having regard to the circumstance of the case, while we
cannot grant all the reliefs prayed for in these writ petitions, they are
disposed of with the following directions:- (i) Neither the Central Bank of
India nor the State Bank of India (respondents 1 and 2 respectively in W.P. No.
9690 of 1990 and sole respondents in W.P. No. 19630 and 19629 respectively)
shall pay any further amounts to respondents 3 and 4 or any other person out of
the principal of the said deposits or interest accruing thereon. The said
deposits and Bank Guarantees shall be subject to the orders that may ultimately
be passed by the Supreme Court in appeals now pending before it, namely civil
appeals Nos. 712 and 713 of 1977.

If the
said appeals are dismissed, it is abvious that the amount covered by the Bank
Guarantees has to be paid over to the Central Bank\Food Corporation of India. If, however, the said appeals are
allowed, the amount will go to the scheduled undertaking, which would go
towards the discharge of arrears which accrued prior to 2.3.1970. In that
event, any surplus amount accruing on account of the difference in interest
should firstly be available for dischargint the said arrears for recovering
which the Receiver was appointed. Of course, this direction. shall be subject
to any directions to the contrary given by the Supreme Court in the said appeals.

(ii)
Within a period of one year from today it shall be open to the Government or
the Collector under the provisions of the U.P.

Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act to issue appropriate unders of attachment or
restraint, as the case may be, calling upon the respondent Banks to pay the
surplus interest amount to them. It such orders are issued, the Bank shall obey
the same subject, of course, to orders to the contrary if any by any court or
competent authority.

(iii)
The bank may consider, and indeed it will be well advised in taking steps for
recovering the amounts paid by it or loan given by it, as the case may be, to
respondents 3 and 4. That is, however, a matter for the bank to decide.

This
order does not preclude the petitioner Corporation from adopting such remedies
as are open to it under law, including civil suits, for establishing its claims
and contentions. Similarly, this order does not preclude the Government,
Collector or any other authority from recovering the amounts which they claim
are due to them either from respondents 3 and 4 or from any other person liable
in that behalf in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. If any
proceedings are already initiated in that behalf they can also be continued
according to law." We are informed that both the appellant as well as
respondent have filed civil suits which are pending disposals under these
circumstances, we think that it is not necessary for us to go into the
question. It would be open to their rights in the suits and decrees will be
passed by the Civil
Court in accordance
with law.